Presentation on the High Conservation Value Approach

Share This Post

In discussing the proposed member requirements and reporting requirements, the Policy Toolbox Working Group has touched frequently upon the topics of High Conservation Value (HCV), no deforestation, no conversion of non-forested ecosystem, and other issues around developments on post-disturbance vegetation/ land cover. 

To establish a common understanding about HCVs, the High Conservation Value Resource Network (HCVRN) Secretariat took the initiative to organize a video presentation to the Working Group members on the HCV Approach. The presentation touched on governance and historical aspects of the HCV Approach, and its implementation in forest and non-forest ecosystems in the landscape, concession and smallholder contexts.

(GPSNR Members may view the presentation and download the slide deck by logging in to the website and accessing the Members Version of this article.) 

More To Explore

GPSNR Working Groups Update: August 2023

Strategy and Objectives Working Group:

In recent developments within the Risk Subgroup, significant progress has been made. Consortiums Agridence and Koltiva have delivered their conclusive reports, which have been duly circulated among the members. The Risk Subgroup extended an invitation to ASI, requesting insights into the formulation of the Risk Assessment Framework. This move aims to ensure the adaptability of the framework to the many different risk tools that exist in the  Natural Rubber Industry. Collaborative efforts are also underway, as the Risk Subgroup and ASI work together on an inaugural pilot trial, focusing on setting Indonesia’s national risk parameters.

Meanwhile, significant strides have been taken in the realm of the Assurance Model Taskforce. Resolutions have been shared within the Strategy and Objectives Working Group, inviting constructive feedback. The completion of the Due Diligence System falls under the purview of ZSL, marking a substantial accomplishment.

The Risk Subgroup is engaging in early-stage discussions with the Basel Institution, exploring a potential collaboration concerning corruption risks within the supply chain.

Further negotiations between the Risk Subgroup and ASI encompass a range of key initiatives, including the preconfiguration of National Risk Levels, the refinement of the Risk Tool’s questionnaire, and harmonising National Risk levels with other established risk assessment tools used within the GPSNR community. ASI is entrusted with designing the GPSNR Assurance Model; and a draft Framework has been shared.

Smallholders Representation and Capacity Building (SCB) Working Group:

In recent updates, several advancements have occurred. The Indonesia National Subgroup has reported quarterly progress to the SCB WG for the GAP Coaching and Disease Fighting projects.

Meanwhile, in Thailand, the National Subgroup has completed proposal evaluations, leading to the selection of Koltiva for the Thailand GAP Coaching project.

A notable achievement is the official endorsement from the SCB WG for the final recommendations report of the Smallholders Policy-Equivalent (SPE).

Concurrently, the Agroforestry-Income Diversification taskforce has successfully finalised contractual arrangements and is actively overseeing projects in Indonesia.

Preparations are underway in the Thailand Agroforestry subgroup for upcoming training discussions scheduled for October 2023. Similarly, the Thailand GAP subgroup is taking steps to initiate its project.

On the technological front, the Digital Knowledge Sharing Platform (KSP) task force is making progress in developing features, anticipating the forthcoming piloting phase.

The HCSA-HCVN Field Trials task force is focused on refining the final report for subsequent submission to the SCB WG.

Looking ahead, the Agroforestry-Income Diversification Taskforce is gearing up for a series of agroforestry workshops planned for 2023-2024.

Cross-group collaboration is evident as the Thailand Agroforestry subgroup plans a knowledge exchange session with the Agroforestry-Income Diversification taskforce and Indonesian smallholder, Pak Febrius SW, with a focus on Rubber Agroforestry.

Lastly, the SCB WG is proactively organising calls with smallholders from diverse countries as part of their preparations for the upcoming October 2023 General Assembly.

Policy Toolbox Working Group:

A resolution along with its corresponding Annex was drafted, aiming for Year 2 Disclosure Requirements. These were slated for submission to the 5th General Assembly (GA).

Consultant Petra Westerlaan presented a proposal to the WG that outlined revisions to the GPSNR Reporting Framework. This proposal resulted from a comprehensive comparison with other reporting frameworks, including CDP Forest, GRI, and ZSL-SPOTT. The proposed revisions emphasised quantification, which would enhance data aggregation and simplify the assessment of annual progress.

Subsequent to the GA, the WG will scrutinise Petra’s proposed revisions and arrive at a consensus on changes to the Reporting Matrix.. Sufficient lead time is essential for companies to prepare their Year 3 data.

Once agreement is reached on revisions to the Reporting Matrix, the WG will proceed to define the disclosure requirements for Year 3 reporting. This sequential approach ensures a methodical and informed evolution of the GPSNR reporting process.

Shared Responsibility Working Group: 

During the face-to-face meeting, the Governance and guiding principles were introduced. Manufacturers are in the process of obtaining internal approval for the Governance Framework. They will subsequently furnish a final version for approval from the GPSNR Executive Committee (EC) and the General Assembly.

A draft resolution was shared with the Working Group (WG) and received approval for distribution to members for feedback.

Collaborating with the Capacity Building WG, the WG is developing a protocol to screen and assess proposals. This evaluation process will be based on the Equity definition and stakeholders as outlined by the EC.

One of the  co-chair seats in the Shared Responsibility WG is available, and a call for volunteers has been initiated.

News

Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien talk about creating a Policy Framework for sustainability and equity in natural rubber

‘’Taking the first step even when you don’t see the entire staircase’’: Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien talk about creating a Policy Framework for sustainability and equity in natural rubber

                                                                            Bani Bains, Communications Manager, GPSNR

GPSNR offers a unique common ground, for peers to engage from across a complex supply chain. This makes it possible for us to have a more holistic perspective of each others’ challenges and aspirations for a sustainable and equitable natural rubber supply chain.

For Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien, co-chairs of the Policy Toolbox and Implementation Guidance Working Group, the aspirations and challenges of all member categories became most apparent as they worked on putting together the GPSNR Policy Framework, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 2020. Today, all member companies must comply with the policy framework within six months of their membership into GPSNR.

As the first batch of member companies publish policies that are in line with the policy framework, Amy and Pierre had a conversation with me about the journey so far, and how the framework guides their current work around the development of different aspects of GPSNR’s assurance model.


BB: To start off, for anyone who isn’t familiar with GPSNR, could you very quickly tell us what the policy framework does and who it is for?

AS: The policy framework guides the company members at GPSNR with a common set of commitments for sustainable natural rubber. This aligns all categories in their pursuit of a sustainable supply chain and ensures we’re all headed in the same direction to uphold a specific set of environmental, social and economic values. The alignment is key in achieving GPSNR’s goals.

PB: The adoption of the policy framework across the supply chain also denotes a shared responsibility towards GPSNR’s objectives.

AS: Beyond these, there are also benefits for companies to have a policy. It can help companies to orient their actions to achieve sustainability, it can also help in engagement with their shareholders and in reflecting leadership. The next step after this, of course, is putting their policies into action, for which we are working on Implementation Guidance.

BB: If you were to go down memory lane, what was the process like of creating this policy framework from scratch? Is there any particular meeting or memory that stands out as an ‘aha’/goosebumps moment?

AS: We started with looking at the Accountability Framework for best practice guidance for developing a policy to develop the main elements of the framework: the policy components. With that in mind, we formed a drafters’ group which included some working group members including Pierre and myself, a representative from the Accountability Framework and two consultants. This group developed the first draft of the policy framework and then facilitated the incorporation of suggestions from other working group members.

What stands out for me is that it was a very, very long process – do you have anything in mind Pierre?

PB: Yes! Just to remind you, I joined the working group and the drafters’ group only in February 2020. By then, Amy and team had already taken care of a lot of work. But after I joined, I recall that it took us a long time to discuss all the components of the policy framework. Each word, each sentence, each idea had very important outcomes linked to them. It was a big feat to reach consensus, and sometimes that meant compromise among civil society and industry members. I think it took us almost one year to decide on the 37 components of the policy framework.

AS: Yes, there was painstaking detail to choose every word in the framework, and several rounds of consultation. Another challenge was the fact that we couldn’t have face to face meetings – and so reaching consensus took even longer than what we expected.

PB: Do you know the 80:20 rule? 80% of the work was completed before I joined, but the final 20% took 90% of the time. And even now, some of the language may need to be tweaked, especially as companies are now adopting these policies and are looking to move into implementation.

BB: Was the framework designed to be a ‘do no harm framework’ covering the minimum requirements from companies, or was it meant to go above and beyond that?

AS: I would consider legality as the minimum for companies to be complying with, but the actions proposed in the policy framework take quite a bit of work and go well beyond that.

Rubber supply chains are very complex, and getting visibility on the ground can be daunting, but it isn’t impossible. And that’s what civil society players are stressing upon: the fact that you need to have transparency on the ground.

BB: And was that a point of contention during the discussions leading up to the policy framework?

AS: We did a lot of discussion around clauses 7.1 and 7.2, and how to deal with the fact that the majority of rubber comes from smallholders.

I think there is another piece to this puzzle – which is that the processors, who are going to be doing a majority of the work, want some assurance from the downstream, that they’re going to be supported financially and technically in doing that work.

PB: Each conversation had a watermark of a significant question: who is going to pay for externalities? While we don’t have answers to some of these questions even now, the policy framework as it stands serves as a good starting point in a continuously evolving, complex but very exciting process.

BB: Did either of you have any non-negotiables in the policy framework that you would have not compromised on?

AS: Ah, yes! The commitment to no deforestation and having a cut-off date was important, because without that you can never define what deforestation is. We spent a lot of time on these points. And then there are others, like the commitment to human rights and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), which we would have insisted on – but we didn’t have to because they were included straight away.

That alignment always existed across the board, because we are all committed to the principles of GPSNR. Nobody was saying those parts of the framework shouldn’t be there, though how they were framed was debated at length. This is because that would directly inform the implementation.

PB: From my side, the one non-negotiable was to use the HCV and HCS approach as the only tool to implement the zero deforestation policy. It was globally agreed among the members, but we were very cautious about the words.

BB: What can companies that have adopted the policy framework do before the implementation guidance is developed?

AS: There are several companies that have been active in this space for years now. And they’ve been contributing to the various working groups in applying their on ground knowledge to the requirements and tools. Beyond that, doing everything they can to achieve supply chain transparency is critical to be able to prioritize areas for action and to make any eventual claims about rubber’s sustainability.  You can’t have sustainability unless you know the origin of your raw material.  Companies can also refer to the Accountability Framework’s operational guidance for support regarding how to put their policies into practice while GPSNR’s Implementation Guidance is being finalized. 

PB: They might know more than they think they do! When I start to write a sustainability report for a company, they don’t always have all the data or figures in one place. Most of the time, they have the information, but sometimes don’t know where to find it.

BB: If you had the opportunity to say something to members who may still be hesitant to comply with the policy framework, what would you say?

PB: I can understand fears around implementation and commitment to some components for members who are quite far from the field. But, we still have to find a commitment to reach the desired state. The policy is simply a part of the journey to sustainability, as are the challenges. We are not looking to blame anyone for non-compliance, but encourage intention to comply. So, just be fair, be honest, and do your best. And if you find some challenges in the implementation, bring them to us.

AS: The benefits of having a policy are numerous, including but not limited to: sending a signal internally and externally that the issues covered by the policy are important to the company and that resources and capacity will be dedicated to its implementation; providing clarity on a company’s goals and facilitating the roll-out of company commitments to suppliers upstream and buyers downstream; enabling the effective monitoring and measuring of progress; and supporting a company’s compliance with existing and emerging legislation on avoiding deforestation and upholding human and labor rights.

I think there is a misunderstanding that after a policy is adopted, companies have to be in full compliance with it from day one. That’s not a realistic expectation  for any company; first companies need to understand where they are at as a baseline and from there, they will need to demonstrate continuous improvement. As responsible GPSNR members, companies will have to submit their action plans that outline how they will implement the different parts of their policies. They will also track progress and show continuous improvement through submission of annual reporting to GPSNR.  The working group is currently developing the tools they’ll need to do this – the Implementation Guidance that’s designed to help orient companies on their sustainability journey, and the reporting requirements that are a key element of GPSNR’s assurance model.  We still have a lot of work to do to finalize these two bodies of work, but fortunately, the Policy Framework provides a solid foundation from which to develop them.    


In a complex supply chain historically burdened by social, economic and environmental inequality, the policy framework Pierre and Amy speak of serves as a guiding document for a hopeful future. As GPSNR members take this first step, even though the entire staircase isn’t fully visible just yet, their commitment towards transforming an entire supply chain is commendable.If you’re a GPSNR member looking for support around aligning with the policy framework, please reach out to us at info@gpsnr.org.

Scroll to Top